Keeping the Old Lightroom Alive

Just as me, you might be disappointed by Adobe's decision to no longer support Lightroom (4/5/6) as standalone programs. As owner of several licenses of various versions of standalone Lightroom, I was looking for alternatives. After having tried several commercial products, I decided to run LR5 as long as I can.
While I am not sure about LR6, 4 and 5 should be OK for the farther future.

However, there is a problem! Over the course of time, electronic cameras (not to call them digital) tend to fail after a few years and require replacement. Someone lately told me that film photography is for the rich. I am not sure about that, for the amount one pays for a new digital camera, a lot of film can be bought! Anyway, that is not my topic for today.
Lightroom RAW support for newer cameras strongly depends on Adobe's updates. With older versions of Lightroom no longer supported, such version won't be able to handle RAW files of "replacement" cameras. Or do they?

It appears that Adobe does not want to totally disappoint former customers, i.e. licensees. For many years, Adobe provides a DNG converter for free. This converter is actually kept updated for the time being.
So, with the additional step of converting directories of RAW files into DNGs, newer cameras will be indirectly supported in older versions of Lightroom.
Fingers crossed that Adobe does not decide to scrap the DNG converter!

The only workable alternative I know of would be RawTherapee. While for certain effects, I actually prefer RawTherapee, this software does not really compare to the general capabilities of Lightroom.

In a way it is funny how dependent a RAW-shooter is on a particular piece of software and therefore from the policies of a particular supplier. And yes, I do know about PHASEONE's Capture One, however, this just adds another dependency from a supplier.

Huawei P9 - MONOCHROME mode

Please, HUAWEI, please release a new firmware in which the B&W-camera's data can be written to a DNG-file!

Why oh why would I commence a blog post like this? The hope is that HUAWEI, through a supposedly simple firmware-update, could make this a premium B&W shooter.

Very simple experimentation, i.e. moving a finger in front of the camera modules, reveals, the "MONOCHROME" mode (yes, capitals are used in the menu) indeed uses the camera next to the phone's edge. In a way, that is indeed good news.

In order to judge the quality of the 2 different cameras, I took 2 shots from a photo published by wired.co.uk (credits to Amy Davies) from my laptop's screen.

The first shot is taken with the regular "PRO" mode, desaturated JPEG + RAW(DNG). The second shot was taken with the "MONOCHROME" mode; and yes, I had correct for the parallax of the 2 cameras.

The following images are 100% crops of the same image portion, the pixelation reflects the pixels of my laptop's screen (no camera artefacts!). The DNG-file was opened in RawTherapee.

RAW (DNG) - desaturated JPEG

MONOCHROME JPEG - desaturated JPEG

RAW (DNG) - MONOCHROME JPEG

Clearly, the monochrome camera can pick up the black matrix of my laptop's screen a lot better than the Bayer filter camera, no surprise here.
Further, the dynamic range of the monochrome camera seems a lot better, just like expected.

HUAWEI, it is your hands to turn the P9 a superior camera by allowing to record RAW data from the monochrome sensor. Such a feature would turn that phone into my favourite camera ever easily.

Huawei P9

The Huawei P9 created a lot of controversy in the photographic community.  Yes, indeed, this is a cell phone, one of those being known a smart. With my cheap cell phone causing problems once in a while, I decided to get myself a P9, install Lightroom mobile and Snapseed on it, to not only have a better phone, but also a portable photo studio.

There are many reviews out there, giving a lot of tips and tricks, I don't want to redo any of that. Just a quick-tip for black and white photographers who also want to keep RAW files.

One of the criticism I was reading, and I do fully agree, the present software seems not allow to extract the raw data from the B&W camera. Maybe some firmware update or hack could solve that in the future. It would actually be nice to have both raw files, the RGB and the B&W.


Anyway, for the time being, this is what I can recommend.

• put the camera in pro-mode (otherwise no RAW file!)
• swipe from the right side to access the settings menu
• go to the last menu item "Image adjustments"
• set saturation to -2 (that turns the JPEG file into a B&W)

The other two sliders could be used in a specific B&W-type way:

• punchy contrasty low key: contrast +2 and brightness -1
• soft high key: contrast -1 and brightness +2

You get the idea, I guess.

In the presence of JPEG files, the RAW (DNG) files are not shown directly. However, all you need to do is import the DNGs into Lightroom mobile or open them in Snapseed.

Below, 2 images, one out of camera JPEG, the other converted from the DNG. Both exported to the Lightroom gallery, scaled down to 2048px. Settings for the JPEG: contrast -1 and brightness +1.

JPEG

DNG

Switching between the images, you will also notice the distortion correction, which is applied to the JPEG automatically.

I will certainly experiment with this camera a lot. Hopefully I will find the time to also share my experiences.

Update

The above shown trick recording a B&W-JPEG next to the DNG does not work with flash. When flash is activated, strangely, the desaturation does not happen.

Not all is lost during night-time, the desaturation trick does work with the "Steady on" illumination.

RAW or not RAW, that is the Question

If you would have asked me that question some months ago, the stereotypical answer would have been: RAW!
You may read a certain doubt between the lines, which however is only true under very specific circumstances.
I am a big fan of shooting photos in raw format and treating those in RawTherapee, DarkTable and Lightroom. Raw data, i.e. data as recorded by the sensor, gives a huge advantage in post processing, since nothing is compressed (read: thrown) away.

As a regular reader, you may recall an earlier post about the Canon IXUS 140 used in raw, to great success, while jpg images, processed in-camera, had the edge concerning distortion.
As a matter of fact, the in-camera correction could always be applied to the raw image by use of post processing software.

However, everything changed with the purchase of the Fujifilm X100S!
The X100S not only comes with an enhanced sensor, with the XTRANS filter array, it also improves the sharpness of the JPG-image by using information about the 23mm prime lens of the camera.
What does that mean? As soon as a focal condition is established, the entire optical system is known. That is exactly what Fuji uses in the JPG converter algorithms.

Presently, such algorithms are not implemented in any software able to deal with XTRANS raw-files.

And here is the dilemma:

1. Shooting in RAW allows me for tweaking the files in terms of exposure.
2. Shooting in JPG gives the full advantage of Fuji's JPG converter.

Of course, the primary answer is simple: Write both file to the memory card and use which ever one is better! That's what I am doing right now.

Fuji took it a step beyond: RAW-photos can be tweaked in-camera and exported to JPG using the lens data to increase resolution. I have not done this yet, folks on the interweb write that being a really fiddly procedure.

To answer the question I posed in the title: use RAW when using any camera other than the X100S.

When using the X100S, you want to record both, the raw and the jpg. Make sure to have all parameters for jpg set to your likings and exposed spot on. If exposure is spot on and all the settings are ideal, the jpg image might actually be much better than the raw with all tweaking attempts... but only then!

Have a look at a screen capture that shows both (click to see on full resolution),  the jpg on the left and the raw on the right:

JPG vs RAF (raw)

Just in this particular case, i.e. the Fuji X100S, I will primarily use the JPG-file, for its enhanced sharpness.

Up to now, with any other camera I own, I would prefer the raw file!

Lunar Photography on the Cheap II (gratis/free)

Yesterday I showed how to take a lunar shot with a simple point&shoot camera with a 8x zoom lens. Of course, the trick was that this inexpensive camera is able to shoot in RAW (thanks to CHDK).

Towards the end of the post, I mentioned that I used commercial software, i.e. Photomatix, to deal with the "develop" part of things. Further I stated that this process would potentially be possible with "free" software.

Today, I gave it a try with Luminance HDR (version 2.3.1), which is free software, to my knowledge.


Preparation

Luminance HDR asks for bracketed frames. Well, with my single shot, I only got one frame. So I used a very common HDR trick, namely creating more frames, differently "exposed" by software. Mind you, I am shooting DNG (digital negative).
Here is how this trick is done (with is free software by know):

• open the shot in Rawtherapee
• go to the EXPOSURE menu
• click on 'Neutral' (this should bring everything to default values)
• export the image using TIFF-16bit (this is your 0Ev shot)
• drop the exposure to -2Ev
• export the image using TIFF-16bit (this is obviously your -2Ev shot)
• raise the exposure to +2Ev
• export the image using TIFF-16bit (this is obviously your +2Ev shot)

Done! You now got 3 frames of identical size and format with different exposure values. That's what HDR-software likes!

The first results in Luminance HDR were not that great. Actually, they were so bad (a lot of grain and noise, over-exposed bits and what not), that I decided not to show those. The software is not easy to use, so I will give it a second try (see below).


Gratis

There is another bit of HDR-software available "for free", i.e. gratis. So we are not dealing with free software here, however, one can use this program without paying for a license.
The program is called FDRTools Basic.

Having loaded the 3 frames into FDRTools, the results were better, but not really satisfying yet. It appeared that the +2Ev frame was not serving any reasonable purpose, hence, I excluded this frame from the process (this is a very nice feature of FDRTools, it is like making invisible a layer in GIMP).
And guess what, the result was instantaneously much better than yesterday's Photomatix results!
Here is the re-sized output, converted into PNG:

2 frames pseudo HDR using FDRTools Basic

To me, that was a stunning result, coming from gratis software! A lot less noise than in yesterday's attempt.

Still, this photo could be slightly improved in GIMP, using the masking technique I explained in the previous post, i.e. the sky was treated with 'wavelet denoise' and the moon with 'wavelet sharpen'.

after GIMP

In the original 16 Megapixels image, the difference is somewhat visible. The above shown scaled down versions look almost identical to me.


Free

And here is the promised text about the entirely free solution.
Learned from my experience with FDRTools, I only loaded the -2Ev and the 0Ev frame into Luminance HDR. So for so good, but now the hard part.
Luminance HDR offers a lot of different algorithms to combine the frames. I went for "Profile 1".
Luminance HDR offers even more algorithms to tone-map the image. And this is where it went wrong in the earlier attempts. Having tried all different options, I selected "Reinhard '02", pulled 'Key Value' to 0.01 (none of the other tone-mapping parameters have any effect at this stage). In order to darken the image, I use the 'Adjust Levels' histograms. And voilà, we got a presentable result created by free software.

2 frames pseudo HDR using Luminance HDR

There is still more noise in the image than in the image created by FDRTools. Again, this calls for the GIMP.
Here we go, same technique as described previously... and here is the result:

denoise / sharpen by the GIMP

Yep, the differences are getting really subtle now, which of course speaks for the use of free software!

I hope you enjoyed this little journey from commercial to gratis to free. Personally, I am not sure if gratis or free won the contest. But certainly commercial produced the least favorable result in this particular case. But than, using software of this nature is somewhat of an unfair abuse, isn't it?

Lunar Photography on the Cheap

Well, this is not the usual thing I would do. However, since those things are possible, I will show 'em to you... and also explain how I did it.

First of all, when doing astro-photography, I would usually use a decent telescope, e.g. an APO refractor w/ a fluorite-glass lens... or a decent reflector with some decent optics.

However, today, I show you how you can achieve an acceptable shot of the moon, using an inexpensive Canon P&S (point 'n shoot). I my case, it is my trusty IXUS 140 (ELPH 130). Of course, we need to use CHDK in order to shoot in RAW.

The shot was taken in the blue hour (aka. magic hour or golden hour). According to the exif data, the shot was taken at f/6.9, 1/125s, 40.0mm, ISO400 (date: 10.01.2014 @ 16:40).

Here is what the camera though I was aiming for (jpeg done by the camera, in the hope that blogger does not tweak the image too much):

JPEG as recorded by the camera, scaled and saved as PNG

The same shot, recorded in RAW (DNG) by CHDK, was taken into Photomatix and the GIMP with the following steps performed on the image.

Photomatix:

• playing with single frame pseudo HDR parameters (tone mapping)
• tweaking highlights and shadows
• dropping exposure by some stops
• increasing contrast
• etc. 

Actually, for the fun of it, this is the image before I used the GIMP:

as exported from Photomatix, no noise-reduction yet

The GIMP:

• duplicating the image, creating a second layer
• creating a layer mask for the first layer (100% opacity)
• masking out the moon (the first layer now contains clouds only!)
• reducing the noise in the clouds using wavelet denoise
• on the lower layer (luna!), increasing sharpness using wavelet sharpen
• flatten the image
• export to PNG

the result of the process laid out above

Yep, this is the same shot... compare the cloud pattern...
After some tweaks, the daylight shot looks like a night-time photo. Also, some detail (noise!) was added to the moon, while noise (detail) was removed from the clouds selectively.

Here you have it, it does not take pro-gear to create a cool(ish) shot of the moon. I happen to have access to Photomatix, however, I feel that you might be able to use some free software to obtain the same effect... maybe even the GIMP!

In comparison, on screen, you might like the image before GIMP better... however, I believe on a print, the GIMPed shot might have an edge.

Tweak your photos and enjoy!

Street Photography Using the LX7

I am rather new to street photography, however, I think I got some basic understanding of what seems to be the thumb-rule for getting the shot in the street.

1. Speed, the shutter needs to open a quickly as possible.
2. Monochrome images are typical for this genre.
3. Depth of field, usually pretty deep.

Let's see what we can do with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7.
This camera, as you probably already know, hast got 4 memory position for custom settings. In my camera, C1 is taken by bracketing, cf. earlier post. This leaves us with the 3 additional spaces under the C2 position of the quick dial, I choose C2-1, later more about that.

Lets look at what we primarily need, control over the camera with the fewest possible interactions.
The camera sports a nice aperture control ring, so, lets go for aperture priority mode (there are actually more reasons for this, you will see).
=> Step 0: set the camera to "A".

Being as fast as possible, the first priority to me was to use manual focus (MF), which is to be selected by the switch at the lens barrel, in order to loose the time any auto-focus takes. "Manual focus?", you may ask yourself, "the one where you have to fiddle that little 'FOCUS'-thingy?!". Yes, precisely that!
Here comes the trick: in the Setup-menu (page 4), there is an entry 'Lens Resume'. This entry refers to 2 options: 'Zoom Resume' and 'MF Resume'. Both come in very handy for street photography purposes.
=> Step 1: enable lens resume for both options (Setup-menu, page 4), see below


We want monochrome, right? Well, yes and no. B&W images in such cameras are produced by processing data that is provided by sensors having a Color Filter Array (CFA) printed on them. Those filters are red green and blue filters, where green occurs twice in a pixel (cf. Bayer filter array). The individual filter dye used on said array will of course have a specific attenuation.
When recording photos in RAW, we record the data provided by the sensors, as the name suggest. This data, however, represents light filtered by the Bayer CFA. 
I hope that camera manufacturers make use of the knowledge of the light attenuation created by the respective dyes and take it into consideration for the algorithm to convert RGB-data into monochrome images. Consequently, you would want to store not only the RAW file, but also a monochrome JPG file.
=> Step 2: in the Rec-menu, set 'Photo Style' to 'Monochrome'
=> Step 2.1: i the Rec-menu, set 'Quality' to 'RAW + fine'


Point 3 of the above list points towards depth of field. Well, since we are on our way programming the camera in aperture priority, we do not need to bother about that, you will take care about the D.o.F. by using the aperture dial on the lens barrel.
=> Step 3: enjoy the aperture dial of the LX7!


Some further stuff may come in handy:

• ISO limit 800 (Rec-menu, page 1), ISO 800 may already be noisy... hence don't go beyond that
• Quick AF ON (Rec page 2), in case you engage auto-focus
• Metering Mode [(.)] (Rec, page 3), evaluative mode, there is not time for spot metering, still we want to meter where we point, roughly...
• Step Zoom ON (Rec, page 4), see below
• Stabilizer ON (Rec, page 4), good idea, in particular since in this type of photography the photographer is moving quite often
• AF Assist Lamp OFF (Rec, page 4), don't alert your subjects!

Now, save your settings into a convenient custom memory. As mentioned above, I went for C2-1. This can be done by on 'Setup' page 2, item: 'Cust.Set Mem.'. I leave it up to you to figure out the rest.


SEE BELOW points:

Lens Resume
Both settings, the focal length and the focus could/should be set before going on the street.
I recommend a focal length equivalent to either 35mm or 50mm, depending on your preference. This setting will be recalled when you switch on your LX7. Depending on your training, you will see for yourself w/o engaging any viewfinder, what the framing will be.
The more important setting is the manual focus (MF). Put the camera into manual focus mode and set the focal distance to about 3m (using a wide open aperture... the on screen display will show you the range). Now stop down the iris, and you will see how deep the D.o.F. will be. Judging the distance to your subject is just a matter of experience, be it 3m, you may open the lens to the maximum, if you are not sure, just stop it down, thereby increasing the D.o.F.

Step Zoom
Depending on your training, you will see with your own eye what the frame will be when knowing the equivalent focal length of the lens. Helps a great deal when shooting from the hips!


Summarizing:
- Those particular setting will produce a colored RAW image and a monochrome JPG.
- The camera is only controlled by the aperture ring, only defining the D.o.F.
- The settings can be recalled by the mode selector.

To RAW or not to RAW?

Sure, RAW is cool, I use it all the times! However, there are some advantages of in-camera computations that should not be put aside.

The CHDK allows you to store, with your Canon camera, RAW files. Such files (I am sure you know all about this) represent the data as recorded by the sensor plus some meta-data such as camera settings.

RAW is good, it allows to manipulate image data whenever you want, e.g. adjusting white balance. There is not compression in the raw format, since it represent raw data. Which is good, because there will be no compression artifacts.

However, there are some down-sides to ignoring the camera's computations. Since CHDK records both, the processed JPG as well as the RAW (DNG - see below), we are able to see the differences ... fingers crossed that blogger does not "improve" the images.

The images below are results of the same photo, i.e. frame. Both files were taken from the memory card, scaled down and saved as 95% quality JPG.

Lets have a look at the raw image:

DNG (raw image) as recorded by the camera

Obviously there is some vignetting going on, cf. upper left corner. The image also shows a very strong distortion as known from wide-angle lenses... mind you, those buildings are all straight...
Colors are rich and there is a good contrast. The finer detail, e.g. fancy structure on the left building's roof, show clear definition.

On the JPG side of things:

JPG as processed by the camera

We are now loosing definition, very clearly. Also the colors are less vibrant. The image is clearly cropped down, c.f. the bicycle in the foreground.
However, there is some lens-distortion correction going on. It seems that the camera actually over-corrects. Note that the modern building bends outwards to the right in the upper right corner.

Correct me if I am wrong, in my perception, the over-correction of the camera is less offending than the distortion seen in the raw image. Of course, in GIMP (potentially also in photoshop, but I can't tell) one can correct for such distortions, however, in the daily life of a P&S-user, it might be even reasonable to just go with JPG in the end.
Mind you, even though it might not be advisable, stacking techniques, such as HDR, can be done using JPG.

Note: Pure raw-format changes from camera to camera, hence, sometimes it is useful to use DNG (digital negative) format to store raw sensor information. The DHCK offers the option to store raw images directly in DNG. Personally, I do make use of that option. Up to now, I had no issues with DNG, when created within the camera.

Where Photography Meets Hacking

"What's that all about?", I hear you thinking... Well, this is where thing a really getting cool.
CANON cameras, at least some, in particular the cheaper ones, all of a sudden, make sense to be preferred over other brands. Yep, that's right! This is how to get a camera shooting in RAW or even DNG for very little money.

Being honest, on this topic, I am just reporting, nothing bears any contribution from me, all honors to the guys who made the following available:
CHDK

No, this is not some sort of UNIX command such as chmod, chgrp, chown, etc. it is the Canon Hack Development Kit... great stuff!
Mind you, today's digital cameras are more like computers. They might even have the compute power that the world was dreaming of 20 years ago. CHDK makes use of this fact and open a new world to photographers.

I learned about the CHDK some months ago and I was a little scared applying it to my older generation EOS DSLR. Anyway, this camera does everything I wanted anyways, so why bother?
A more recent member of my camera family had to hold up for my curiosity, the G15. If you study the CHDK homepage, you will notice why I made that choice.
CHDK works fine with the G15, however, again, there was not much to gain from the kit. The G15 shoots in raw, has custom settings etc. So, yes, CHDK worked fine, but was not adding "much" at the end (more about that at the end of this post).

There is a catch to the G15, it is not a camera to carry about in your pocket. Neither is the Panasonic DMC-LX7 (presently my favorite camera), although doing a bit better in terms of dimensions, the LX7 is still to big for a camera to carry on a daily basis. Something smaller had to join the group.
Have a look:

Canon IXUS 140, Samsung S760, Panasonic DMC-LX7, Canon G15, (*)

The Samsung S760 (see earlier post) followed me quite a bit, in my pocket, it is however clear that neither the LX7 nor the G15 will be able to take that space.

Initially I though of a Panasonic DMC-XS3, for its compactness and the advanced sensor, however, for the good stuff provided by CHDK, a new Canon was in order, one that fits into any pocket w/o disturbing too much. My first choice fell on an IXUS 125, being on sale for just €66, however, the store was not local, which would cause additional cost of shipping. My second choice was the IXUS 140, which not only has a longer zoom than the IXU 125, but also employs WiFi. A local store asks €119 for this camera, so I bought it.

Here comes the good stuff. There is an alpha-version of CHDK available for the IXUS 140. Believing that this camera will be very popular, I am sure that this alpha will evolve into a full release (I am willing to help). 
Anyhow, for just above (or under) €100,- one can get a pocket compact camera that shoots in RAW! How cool is that?!
And here comes the magic, your inexpensive little Canon is not only shooting in RAW, it is even able to create DNG-files (Adobe digital negative).

Best things to come (this is where I close the loop to the G15), with CHDK suitable cameras can be automated to an extend beyond wildest dreams. CHDK offers 2 different ways for automating your Canon by scripts: Lua and uBASIC. At a first look, Lua reminds me of FORTRAN with influences of C. uBASIC looks like BASIC to me, fair enough.
Hence, due to scripting, the camera also can do things that only you can come up with and you were only able to dream about to be implemented into your camera.
And... thanks to the small form factor in which some Canon cameras are available today, all that fits in your pocket easily.



(*) Note the different setting of the mode dial: the S760 on manual for the recent HDR demo, the LX7 on C1 (handheld HDR mode) and the G15 on P (like P&S). And yes, I like to use the straps, preventing me from dropping stuff to destruction.